Direct vs OTA Net Revenue Calculator
Compare what you keep from a booking after the acquisition costs you enter for each channel. This is a net revenue comparison, not an operating-profit calculation, and it does not predict that bookings will move channel.
Your channel costs
Labels your own figures. Nothing is converted between currencies.
The same booking value on both channels, so the comparison isolates acquisition cost. If your direct rate genuinely differs, run the calculation twice rather than blending the two.
The all-in percentage this channel costs you, including any optional programme surcharge, taken from your agreement.
Everything it costs to win a direct booking, as a percentage of booking revenue: metasearch and paid search, booking-engine or channel fees, card and payment processing, and any commission on free booking links. Leaving items out is what makes direct look cheaper than it is.
How many bookings you want to model moving from the OTA to the direct channel. This is a scenario size you choose, not a prediction.
Net revenue per OTA booking
€106.60
Net revenue per direct booking
€123.50
Difference per booking
+€16.90
Scenario difference
+€845
Check the content behind your channel mix
MisMatchMaker compares supported listing details. It does not predict revenue or compare rates.
Check my listingsHow to read the result
Net revenue per OTA booking
What reaches you from one OTA booking after commission, before any operating cost. This is the figure to compare against your direct column, not against your room rate.
Net revenue per direct booking
The same calculation with your direct acquisition cost. If this looks surprisingly high, check whether every direct cost is actually included — payment fees and staff time are the two most often left out.
Difference per booking
The per-booking gap between the channels. A negative figure means direct currently costs you more than commission does, which is a legitimate and fairly common result for a property spending heavily on paid acquisition.
Scenario difference
The per-booking gap multiplied by the number of bookings you chose to model. It assumes those bookings would have happened either way, which is the assumption most worth challenging before quoting the number.
A worked example
A resort checking whether its direct push is actually paying. Figures are illustrative and are shown in EUR for readability; they are not measured research or a benchmark for your property.
Inputs
- Average revenue per booking
- 640
- OTA commission rate
- 17%
- Direct acquisition cost
- 11%
- Bookings in the shift scenario
- 120
Result
- Net revenue per OTA booking
- 531.20
- Net revenue per direct booking
- 569.60
- Difference per booking
- +38.40
- Scenario difference
- +4,608
The gap is real but much narrower than the headline commission rate suggests: 6 percentage points, not 17. That is the useful insight. A direct strategy costing 11% is still worth running here, but the case for it rests on guest relationship and repeat stays as much as on the per-booking difference, and it would disappear entirely if acquisition cost rose to 17%.
What each input means
Most disagreements between a calculator like this and a real statement come from putting the right number in the wrong box. These are the definitions this tool assumes.
- Average revenue per booking
- The same booking value on both channels, so the comparison isolates acquisition cost. If your direct rate genuinely differs, run the calculation twice rather than blending the two.
- OTA commission rate (%)
- The all-in percentage this channel costs you, including any optional programme surcharge, taken from your agreement.
- Direct acquisition cost (%)
- Everything it costs to win a direct booking, as a percentage of booking revenue: metasearch and paid search, booking-engine or channel fees, card and payment processing, and any commission on free booking links. Leaving items out is what makes direct look cheaper than it is.
- Bookings in the shift scenario
- How many bookings you want to model moving from the OTA to the direct channel. This is a scenario size you choose, not a prediction.
Formula and limitations
Formula
Net revenue per booking = average booking revenue × (1 − acquisition-cost rate), applied separately to the OTA and direct rates. Difference per booking = direct net revenue − OTA net revenue. Scenario difference = difference per booking × bookings in your scenario.
What this calculation does not include
- This is net of acquisition cost only. Operating expenses, payroll, and overheads are excluded, so it is not profit.
- Incrementality is assumed away. A guest who books direct after finding you on an OTA was not necessarily won by your direct channel.
- Lifetime value, repeat stays, and loyalty membership are not valued, which understates the direct channel.
- The cost of building and running a direct channel — website, booking engine, staff, campaigns — is only included to the extent you put it in the percentage.
- Payment timing, chargeback risk, currency conversion, and taxes are excluded.
- Cancellation rates often differ between channels and are not modelled.
Frequently asked questions
What should I include in direct acquisition cost?
Everything you spend to produce a direct booking, expressed as a percentage of booking revenue: metasearch and paid-search spend, booking-engine or web-platform fees, any commission on free booking links or connected campaigns, card and payment-processing charges, and a fair allocation of the staff time spent running the channel. Most direct-versus-OTA comparisons flatter the direct side simply by leaving several of these out.
Is this the same as profit per booking?
No. It is revenue net of acquisition cost. Housekeeping, laundry, utilities, food cost, payroll, and overheads all sit below this line and are broadly similar whichever channel the booking came through, so excluding them keeps the comparison focused on the one thing that actually differs between channels.
Why does my direct channel come out worse than the OTA?
Because it can be. If you are bidding hard on metasearch and paid search, the all-in cost of a direct booking can exceed the commission on the same booking. That is a genuine finding rather than an input error, and it is a reason to examine campaign efficiency before spending more on shifting mix. The wider case for direct — owning the guest relationship and the repeat stay — is not captured by this calculation.
Does shifting bookings to direct guarantee the scenario difference?
No. The scenario assumes the same bookings occur either way and only the channel changes. In practice some OTA bookings would not have reached you at all without that platform's visibility, so the realised gain is usually smaller than the arithmetic suggests. Treat the figure as a ceiling.
Can I share this comparison?
Yes. All four inputs and the currency are held in the page address, so the link reproduces the comparison exactly. It is a practical way to put a channel-cost discussion in front of an owner or a revenue manager without rebuilding a spreadsheet.